N C CHAKRABORTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned trial Judge in Civil Rule No. 393 (W) of 1983. By the aforesaid judgment the writ petition of the appellant Shri N.C. Chakraborty was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge. The aforesaid writ petition was moved by the appellant Shri Chakraborty challenging the order of termination of service of the appellant by the then Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Bharat Brakes and Valves Limited, a Government of India undertaking on the footing that the appellant had orally tendered his resignation on the 9th November, 1981 and immediately on the said date his oral resignation was accepted and a cheque equivalent to three months' salary was given to him as a gesture of good will of the company. It is the case of the appellant that in November, 1981 the appellant was an employee of the company, Bharat Brakes and Valves Limited. The said company is a government company and is an instrumentality or an agency of the Central Government and as such an authority and a State within the meaning of the Article 12 of the Constitution of India. At the relevant time the appellant was a Personnel Manager of the said company and the respondent No. 4 Shri R. Dutta, was the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the said company. The appellant has contended in the writ petition that there were allegations against Shri A.K. Bhattacharjee, Sales Executive and Shri A. Kunjur, Superintendent, Machine Shops of the said company about tampering with the cash memos submitted by them for reimbursement from the company and such improper action was detected by the Accounts Department of the company. The cases were forwarded to the appellant, being the Personnel Manager, for investigation. The appellant has contended that in consultation with the Finance Manager and the Project Manager it was decided that the company's Medical Officer should be sent along with one officer of the Accounts Department to visit the Drug Stores for verification of the authenticity of the medicines stated to have been purchased by the said officer. Accordingly, the Medical Officer of the company and Shri Gautam Sen, Accounts Officer, had visited different drug stores and checked the counterfoils of cash memos. It is the case of the appellant that discrepancies were found on such verification and the said officers got those cash memos certified by the respective drug stores indicating the items purchased and price paid. The said Medical Officer and the Accounts Officer submitted a report in respect of the said medical bills indicating what were the actual figures and amount claimed from the company and what were the items of medicines subsequently added in the cash memos. The appellant has contended that as a Personnel Manager he gave a note incorporating the facts and circumstances of the case and the respondent No. 4, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the said company after perusal of the said note of the company returned the same to the appellant for further action and the appellant as a Personnel Manager prepared a show cause notice to be served upon the said Shri A.K. Bhattacharjee and Shri A. Kujur. He thereafter requested the said Chairman-cum-Managing Director to sign those letters in the afternoon of November 7, 1981. It is the case of the appellant that he requested the respondent No. 4 to sign the said show cause notices on the November 7, 1981 when he had come to the officer after the meeting with the President of Mazdoor Union. But the said respondent informed the appellant that he would sign the same on Monday, November 9, 1981. On November 9, 1981 Shri A.K. Bhattacharjee, who was one of the officers against whom the said allegations of using the tampered documents were made, resumed the office. According to the appellant he had also a talk with the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the company on the said date and the appellant was asked by the Managing Director to have a talk with Mr. Bhattacharjee in presence of the Project Manager and according to the appellant he had such talk as directed and the Finance Manager later on also joined such discussion. The appellant has contended that when the respondent No. 4, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director was asked on November 9, 1981 to sign the charge sheets he informed the appellant that the Department Manager would sign those letters. The appellant being the Personnel Manager drew the attention of the respondent No. 4 that as per the company's Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Rules only the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the company was authorised to sign those show cause notices against the concerned officers. But the said respondent No. 4 did not agree with the view of the appellant and appellant thereafter drew his attention to the company's Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Rules and the same were shown to him. It is the case of the appellant that thereafter a meeting was held in the office of the respondent No. 4, namely, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director where the Finance Manager, Project Manager and the Secretary of the company were also present and the appellant joined such meeting at a later stage. The respondent No. 4 in the said meeting started probing the case as to the detection and also caused enquiry as to how the case was handled and the investigation proceeded and it is the case of the appellant that despite his best efforts he could not convince the respondent No. 4, namely, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director that in such investigation the company's doctor was better than any outside doctor. The appellant has contended that the respondent No. 4 had put question as to why the said officers should be suspended. The appellant drew the attention of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director that the allegations made against the said officers involve serious case of misconduct like theft, fraud, dishonesty and assault. But the respondent No. 4 did not like the report made by the appellant and directed the appellant to delete the portion in which the allegations of theft, fraud, dishonesty and assault were made against the concerned employees. It is the case of the appellant that at that stage the resignation letter of Shri A.K. Bhattacharjee was placed before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director and the Project Manager was of the view that such resignation should be accepted on the expiry of the notice period of three months. Such resignation was however accepted on the next day, i.e. November 10, 1981, with immediate effect and a departmental proceeding was initiated against the other officer Shri Kujur. The appellant has contended that on the said resignation letter submitted by Shri A.K. Bhattacharjee, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director at the said meeting on November 9, 1981 asked for the comments of the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that usually no such comment is required to be made by the Personnel Manager. The question of acceptance of such resignation letter of an officer was entirely matter for consideration of Chairman-cum-Managing Director. The appellant on being asked to make a comment requested the Chairman-cum-Managing Director that unless the matter would be referred to him officially he could not give such comment. It is the case of the appellant that the said respondent No. 4, namely, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director became visibly annoyed with the appellant and he told the other officers present there that the appellant disobeyed his orders and the said officers were witnesses of such disobedience. It is the case of the appellant that as the appellant became terribly upset and humiliated by the annoyance of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, he told to the said respondent that if the respondent would act in that fashion, the Personnel Department could never function effectively and in that case the appellant would have to consider about tendering resignation. The appellant contended that he did not tender any resignation either orally or in writing but he was surprised to find a memo being sent to him in the afternoon of the said date, namely, on November 9, 1981 whereby the Chairman-cum-Managing Director informed that as he tendered resignation the same was accepted with immediate effect and as gesture of goodwill a cheque for three months' salary was enclosed with the said letter. It is the case of the appellant that he was completely nonplussed and was taken aback by curious action taken by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director. There was no alternative but to sign and accept the cheque and the Chairman immediately arranged to send the appellant to his home by the company's car. The appellant has contended that on November 12, 1981 he informed the said Chairman-cum-Managing Director that he had not tendered any resignation but such resignation was forced upon him by alleging that he had tendered resignation orally. The appellant explained the facts and circumstances under which he had only indicated in the meeting of November 9, 1981, that if the Managing Director would interfere and act in that manner he might have to consider about tendering resignation. The appellant requested the Chairman-cum-Managing Director by a letter to withdraw the letter issued by him showing acceptance of the alleged resignation and he requested the Managing Director to allow him to resume his normal duties. Such letter was sent under registered post. It is the case of the appellant that unfortunately the Managing Director did not recall the said letter and he drew the attention of Shri V.P. Gupta, Deputy Secretary & Director, Ministry of Industry, Government of India and the Director of the said company about the facts and circumstances under which the alleged oral resignation was forced on him. It is the case of the appellant that on the advice of Shri Gupta he also met the Chairman-cum-Managing Director at his residence and requested him to recall the said letter of accepting the alleged resignation and it is the case of the appellant that the appellant also by letter expressed regret over the incident which happened on the November 9, 1981 and although the Managing Director assured him to take him back in service, later on he declined to do so. As a result, the appellant was compelled to move the writ petition before this Court.

(2.) The respondent No. 4, the then Chairman-cum-Managing Director, affirmed an affidavit in the said writ proceeding. It has been stated by the said respondent No. 4 in the affidavit in opposition that the verification of the memos submitted by the two senior officers of the company should not have been made by the other employees having the same rank or inferior rank. But the respondent No. 4 indicated that he wanted to discuss the matter with very senior officers of the company before taking any action against them. The respondent No. 4 has also stated in his affidavit in opposition that on November 9, 1981, Shri A.K. Bhattacharjee, against whom the allegation of tampering with the cash memos had been made, met him and had verbal discussion with him and the respondent No. 4 has stated that he directed the said Shri Bhattacharjee to talk with the Project Manager. He has, however, stated in the said affidavit that he was not aware as to whether or not the said Shri Bhattacharjee subsequently had discussions with the appellant or with the Project Manager or with the Finance Manager. The respondent No. 4 has admitted in paragraph 8 of the affidavit in opposition that when the appellant came to him with two show cause notices to be issued against Shri Bhattacharjee and Shri Kujur, he told the appellant that such show cause notices should be signed and issued by the Departmental Manager and not by him. The respondent No. 4 has also stated that the appellant was not within his right to question his decision regarding the signing of the show cause notices to be issued against Shri Bhattacharjee and Shri Kujur. The respondent No. 4 has further stated in his affidavit in opposition that the appellant expressed in the meeting of November 9, 1981 in the presence of other senior officers that he had tendered resignation from the service and it is not correct to contend that he had only expressed that he would have to consider about tendering resignation. It may be noted here that the respondent No. 4 is no longer the Chairman of the company and as a matter of fact when the affidavit was affirmed by him in July, 1984 he was not the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the company. The appellant filed the affidavit in reply to such affidavit in opposition and has reiterated the statements made in the writ petition and denied the allegations to the contrary. It may be noted in this connection that the letter issued to the writ petitioner by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director on November 9, 1981 informing him that his verbal resignation has been accepted, does not contain any endorsement made by the other Officers who were present in the said meeting. But in the affidavit in opposition a copy of such letter of the Managing Director accepting the resignation of the appellant has been annexed and in such copy there is an endorsement at the bottom of such letter to the effect. "It is confirmed that Shri N.C. Chakraborty, Personnel Manager, desires to resign from the services of this company on the November 9, 1981." Shri S.K. Chakraborty, Mr. B.K. Dutta Chowdhury and Mr. M. Kundu put their signatures beneath such endorsement. The learned trial Judge has come to the finding that since the oral resignation tendered by the appellant had been accepted by the Chairman on the very same day, there was no occasion for the appellant to contend that he did not intend to tender resignation and there was no occasion to withdraw the same. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed by the learned trial Judge and the instant appeal has been preferred against the said decision of the learned trial Judge.

(3.) Mr. Motilal, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, has very strongly contended that in the instant case the Chairman-cum-Managing Director in order to wreak vengeance had imposed an alleged resignation on the appellant when in fact such resignation had not been tendered by him. He has submitted that the appellant by his letter sent under registered post categorically stated that he did not submit any resignation on November 9, 1981. But in the facts and circumstances, which had occurred in the meeting of November 9, 1981 he felt very humiliated and frustrated and expressed that if the Managing Director would act in that manner, he might have to think about tendering resignation. Mr. Motilal has submitted that it will appear from the copy of the letter of acceptance of resignation dated November 9, 1981 annexed to the affidavit in opposition of the Managing Director that the three officers only endorsed to the effect that the Personnel Manager desired to resign but they have not stated that such resignation had in fact been tendered by him. No supporting affidavit has been affirmed by the said officers. Mr. Motilal has further submitted that the learned trial Judge took serious exception as the appellant had encashed the cheque on November 12, 1981. The learned trial Judge was of the view that if the appellant had not tendered resignation but the resignation was imposed on him he should not have encashed the cheque for three months which was forwarded to him along with the said letter accepting the alleged resignation. Mr. Motilal has submitted that since the appellant denied that he had tendered resignation and stated he was in the service of the company, acceptance of three month's salary was not improper as the appellant did not think that such acceptance would be per se illegal thereby precluding the appellant to contend that he had not tendered resignation.